The move comes just 4 months after the Missouri state legislature made significant changes to a voter-passed initiative, Prop B. SB161, the revised bill, provided significant upgrades to enforcement resources -- including giving the state Attorney General more authority to close down poorly performing commercial breeding operations.

SB 161 was supported by the area commercial breeders, as well as the two highest profile animal rights groups in the state -- the Missouri Humane Society and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL). Both groups supported the voter approved Prop B, but also supported the changes. The only vocal opponent to SB 161 was the Humane Society of the United States.

And thus far, the increase in enforcement resources (which all actualy began prior to Prop B even being proposed) has been a success.

When the new agricultural director Jon Hagler took over in 2009, he cleaned house, removing half of the dog-breeding inspectors (the 2001 State Auditor's report repremanded the department because several employees had gone several years without issuing a single citation). Hagler added two inspectors and two more investigators.

As a result, the number of actual inspections more than doubled from 2008 to 2010, and thus, violations shot up 84%.

According to MAAL, more than 500 commercial breeding operations in the state have closed down since January 2009 - -nearly 30% of those in the state. With fewer kennel operations, the state now has more resources to do more inspections on the ones that remain, which is creating better conditions for the ones that remain open.

All of this is certainly good news for the breeding dogs in Missouri, as we continue to move toward better conditions for these dogs.

However, while things are moving in the right direction, instead of acknowledging this, HSUS continues to spend money trying to get back at the state for changing Prop B. HSUS has now contributed more than $110,000 to a new potential Constitutional Amendment that would make it more difficult for the state legislature to change voter inititatives (it should be noted, that more than 1/2 of the state governments in the U.S. don't allow voter initiatives at all).

For a whole host of reasons I don't support the new Constitutional Amendment being proposed by HSUS, but it's even more maddening that they continue to spend their fortunes on more ballot initiatives -- not because the state isn't taking action -- but because they're mad they didn't get their way.

So far so good for the state on making improvements to the state's commercial breeding operations....

June 16, 2011

There is a lot of news in Kansas City and the surrounding area right now. As such, there are a couple of stories that I think are important to share.

Pin Ups for Pit Bulls Midwest Carnival

Over the weekend was a great event with the folks from Pin Ups for Pit Bulls, along with Shorty Rossi, were in town over the weekend to raise awareness for 'pit bull' type dogs and to raise some money for local rescues.

This was an extremely fun event -- and before hand, the great folks over at Paw Prints had a great interview with both Shorty and Little Darling to get some insight behind the TV show the Pit Boss and behind the efforts from Pin Ups for Pit Bulls.

It sounds like The Pit Boss is going to be airing a show from Denver soon which will expose many of Denver's problems as it relates to the city's breed ban.

Two local animal welfare organizations have officially formed a merger as Animal Haven - -the city's largest no kill animal shelter, and No More Homeless Pets KC -- on of the two largest low-cost spay neuter clinics, have officially formed a merger to form the Heartland SPCA.

I really don't have a lot of commentary about what this may or may not mean in Kansas City animal welfare. Both organizations have been working very closely together for many years and this just solidifies their partnership. I think the name is problematic (I still think most causal observers will think this is an off-shoot of the ASPCA) -- however, I do think the two groups (both very good organizations) can merge their power for positive change for the animals in the metro area.

More to come on this, no doubt, but this is pretty big news in the metro this week (even though it may have been the worst kept secret ever).

Missouri Dedicates $$ for crack down on Puppy Mills

Earlier this week, Governor Jay Nixion held a press conference at the Humane Society of Missouri that announced that the state has officially dedicated $1.1 million for more state field inspectors, veterinarians and enforcement agents in order to crack down on poorly run commercial breeders in the state.

This promise was part of the Governor's compromise that eliminated parts of voter-approved proposition B, but also added several key enforcement measures including this money for more enforcement and some increased power for the state Attorney General to close down repeated violators of state laws (which has already led to the closing of two breeding operations). This is particularly notable at a time when the state was facing a $704 million budget deficit, even before the state had to set aside $50 million to help the city of Joplin recover from a massive tornado that hit last month, and as the state is dealing with major flood damage that will also take millions of dollars of state funds to rebuild levies and repair damages.

So the state continuing to increase funding for shutting down poorly-run breeding operations in spite of these budget shortfalls is HUGE.

And yet, Wayne Pacelle of HSUS still found room to criticize. Pacelle criticizes the money because he doesn't think it should have come in conjunction with the changes to Prop B. While Pacelle mentioned at one point recognizing the need to compromise on Prop B, he apparently doesn't realize that compromise involves both parties giving in on certain things. Maybe this is why the compromise was among local animal welfare groups and HSUS wasn't invited to the table.

While everyone should be celebrating the increased enforcement resources (which was everyone's #1 need in solving the state's 'puppy mill crisis') at a time of significant financial strain on the state, leave it to HSUS to be the critic (of course, the news comes at a time when Wayne Pacelle was on his book tour and was in St. Louis last night promoting his book, and Kansas City tonight). It should also be noted that the state's $1.1 million toward enforcement -- which is very good news, is less than 1/3 of the money HSUS spent trying to pass Proposition B.

S&S has long been known to be a problem commercial breeder in the state -- and according to HSUS reports, had more than 500 pages of enforcement issues that showed them in violation of Missouri state laws regulating commercial breeders - -ranking the operation as one of HSUS's "Dirty Dozen". You can read some of the horrible inspection reports here -- thanks to KMOV-TV in St. Louis.

And yet, because the USDA functions as a compliance organization, not really a law enforcement one, the breeding operation remained open and licensed by the state because local authorities who would have been responsible for shutting down the operation were not doing so.

However, it was the very enforcement provision included in the bills proposed by the legislature that allowed for S&S to be closed down so quickly -- as it was the state Attorney General Chris Koster that ordered the operation to be shut down. This is a power that was not included in the voter-approved Proposition B that was a key component in the legislature in dealing with the issue of repeat offenders (a major problem that was identified by the Better Business Bureau).

The dogs will be put up for auction again as opposed to turned over to various rescue organizations. This is sort of how governments handle confiscated items (like tow services) -- but it would be nice if the state could come up with a better solution to living creatures that are confiscated for horrible situations. But I do think this is a great first start -- as the new law, which went into effect immediately, worked perfectly to shut down one of the state's worst offenders of animal cruelty. There are more operations that they need to set their sites on -- but I think showing the success of the new law -- in just 3 weeks -- at shutting down poorly run operations, is worth noting.

April 27, 2011

In amazingly swift government reaction, SB 161 has now been approved by both houses of congress. the House voted 108 to 42 (72% approval) today to pass SB 161 (the Governor's Compromise Bill). The Bill then went to the Senate, which passed the bill 24-10 (71%). The bill then returns to the Governor's desk where everyone expects him to sign it (he did write and submit it).

Meanwhile, the Governor's Compromise bill, which adds some of the animal protection elements of Prop B back into the law has been tacked onto state bill SB 161 and is now being heard by the congress. While not popular with some of the national organizations, the changes in SB 161 were strongly supported by several state animal welfare groups -- including MAAL and Humane Society of Missouri.

It may not be perfect. Nothing ever is. But I think if SB 161 passes (and I have no reason to believe it won't), it will provide a few legal upgrades over the current law that will be beneficial to the dogs - -and more importantly, some major enforcement upgrades that will definitely improve Missouri's situation of poorly run and managed commercial breeding operations.

At this point, with Prop B dead, there is absolutely no reason to not support SB 161 and lets get some better laws, and enforcement in place.

April 19, 2011

Earlier today, I mentioned that two Misouri Animal Welfare Groups; Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL) sat down with the head of the state Department of Ag, and two organizations representing the breeding community, and the Governor, to create a compromise solution to the debate over Proposition B. It's a solid plan, that addresses several of the key issues facing dogs in commercial breeding operations in this state.

The plan keeps several provisions that improve the treatment of dogs in commercial breeing operations. It keeps the funding for Operation Bark Alert -- which has shut down nearly 500 commercial breeders in the past 2 years. It provides funding for nearly double the enforcement resources in the state for next year - which was identified by the state auditor, Better Business Bureau and the USDA as being a primary driver for the state's current 'puppy mill' problem. It also gives the state attorney general more power to close down unlicensed and poorly run commercial breeding operations.

In this post, I'm going to provide two different points of view on this. The first is from Bob Baker, the Executive Director of MAAL. MAAL is an animal welfare organization that has pushed for a lot of law concerning the welfare of animals in the state - including this list, as well as pushing for the passing of Prop B. This is a group that is very much on the fringe of animal rights and is more in line with HSUS's views than not in many cases.

Here is Bob Baker's comments regarding the compromise. All emphasis is Mr. Baker's:

Today we have announced our support of proposed legislation that would provide humane standards of care to dogs in commercial breeding facilities and would implement the core provisions of Prop B.

This proposed legislation would not have come about without your tireless efforts over the past few months. Your personal visits, letters, emails and phone calls to your legislators as well as Governor Nixon are making a difference.

As you already know current law and SB 113 would allow breeding dogs to be confined to tiny wire floor cages for their entire lives - many warehoused inside barns never seeing the light of day much less exercise. Current law and SB 113 deny veterinary care and even an annual veterinary exam to the dogs and would allow frozen water to satisfy requirements for water.

The forthcoming legislation would require an annual veterinarian examination of breeding dogs to ensure their health and welfare as well as require that any dogs with a serious illness or injury receive prompt treatment by a veterinarian. This legislation would also require continuous access to clean water and thus dogs would no longer be forced to languish without water for hours and hours in the summer heat or allow frozen water to satisfy water requirements in the winter.

More important, this legislation will provide ample space for the dogs confined in these breeding facilities as it mandates that dogs are provided with three times the current requirement of space.

This legislation also mandates that breeding dogs have constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise run - breeding dogs will now be guaranteed exercise and fresh air.

This legislation will also prohibit wire flooring which is uncomfortable for dogs to walk on and often causes injuries to their legs and feet.

Along with increased standards of care, this legislation will provide for a dramatic increase in enforcement efforts by providing funding for additional inspectors and veterinarians to help ensure the humane treatment of dogs in commercial breeding operations.

Thanks again for all your hard work and perseverance. Your efforts are paying off. We will be asking you to contact your legislators again once this legislation is formally introduced and will continue to keep you informed as this legislation progresses.

With some fanfare, a “compromise” in Missouri was announced between some traditional political adversaries on Prop B yesterday. Since the November election, the coalition of animal protection organizations (including MAAL) that pushed for the passage of this anti-puppy mill measure wanted to see the will of the people respected. But knowing the composition of the state legislature, and the hostility of the Republican leadership in both chambers to Prop B, we knew that we’d have to entertain compromise on some elements of the agreement (at no point, ever, publically, has Pacelle or anyone from HSUS mentioned any thought of compromise -- and likely, this is why they didn't have a seat at the table when it came to this new law), in order to protect the measure for the long term and to obviate the need for a second public vote on the issue.

The opponents of Prop B didn’t want to compromise on its core elements (in fairness, the opponents WERE at the table for the compromise -- even though, realistically, they are in the situation of power at this point), and they charged ahead with a bill to repeal it (SB 113,which passed both chambers).

Yesterday the situation turned fairly dramatically, with an announcement that two respected Missouri animal welfare groups (Including MAAL) had reached an accord with the trade associations for the puppy mill industry and the agriculture industry. The HSUS, the ASPCA, and Best Friends Animal Society don’t believe that the arrangement reached yesterday adequately protects Prop B.

A compromise, in this context, would have entailed some movement from both sides but ensured that Prop B remains largely intact. But this deal does fundamental damage to Prop B:

Prop B established a limit on the number of breeding dogs at 50, and that provision is gone. There’s not even a requirement that if you have 500 or 1,000 dogs you have to have enough staff on hand to care for the dogs.

Prop B called for breeding females to have a rest every third heat cycle. The new measure allows dogs to be bred every heat cycle for their entire lives.

Prop B required an outdoor exercise area at least twice the size of a dog's indoor enclosure, so that dogs would not spend their whole life crammed in cages. This new measure requires an "outdoor run" but does not mandate any particular size, and allows the state Department of Agriculture to waive this vague mandate in regulations.

Prop B required veterinary care for illness or injury, but the new measure allows such care to be withheld anytime a breeder decides on his or her own that a condition is not "serious."

Prop B called for no stacking of cages, but the new measure allows it, as long as there is an impervious barrier between the cages. Cage stacking is a recipe for the type of overcrowding that defines the worst puppy mills. (It should be noted here that a LARGE number of rescue and shelter orgs stack cages in this regard -- with no outrage)

Prop B stipulated no wire flooring, but the new provision allows for wire flooring as long as it’s encased. Coated wire flooring still harms dogs' paws and is unacceptable.

The new language weakens the space requirements in Prop B, and it’s extremely vague and unclear. What’s more, breeders will have five years to come into compliance with it, and that’s inordinately long in this context (this isn't actually true in most cases)

We strongly support more robust funding for enforcement of commercial dog breeding operations, as the governor proposed last week. But there’s no reason to calve off large portions of Prop B in order to have adequate enforcement (So Wayne isn't willing to give up anything to get what actually is the single biggest win out of the whole conversation, better enforcement). It’s a false choice, and it smacks of political extortion: agree to these changes, or we’ll defund enforcement.

HSUS believes that compromise is an important part of the political process (apparently, as long as it is the other party doing all of the compromising). All along, we’ve been open to real compromise. But we insist on getting something meaningful in the process for animals, and we also believe in respecting the free and fair election on this subject that occurred less than six months ago. Missouri voters heard from both sides, read the clear ballot language about the provisions of Prop B, and made their judgment. In this case, this compromise falls far short of Prop B in protecting breeding dogs from unnecessary suffering, and it’s not worthy of support.

So why such different views of the same proposal? Who do you think is more "right"?

Is MAAL just caving under a situation where they realize they are not in the position of power in the state legislature and just preserving what they can? Or do they see the increased enforcement as the key that is worth losing other elements of Prop B? Is HSUS grandstanding? Or are they right?

Yesterday, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon issued a statement about an agreement between the state's animal welfare and agriculturual organizations:

"Over the past week, my administration has been working closely with folks on every side of this issue to reach an agreement that respects the will of the voters, protects dogs and allows responsible breeders to earn a living in our state. People with good minds and good will have come together to develop a Missouri solution to this Missouri issue, and together, we have made significant progress. Throughout this process, I have met personally with representatives of Missouri's major animal-welfare and agricultural organizations, and with leaders on this issue in both the House and the Senate. The agreement that was signed today upholds the intent of the voters, protects dogs and ensures that Missouri agriculture will continue to grow."

The agreement is essentially SB 113/HB 131 -- with a provision that requires the twice the kennel space as the current law and unfettered access to an attached outdoor run. Kennel sizes will have to triple in size by 2016 -- or for any newly constructed facilities. Also, wire strand flooring will be prohibited.

I am also assuming that Gov. Nixon's proposal for an incremental $1.1 million in funding for additional enforcement resources is a part of the agreement.

The agreement was signed by Kathy Warnick, Humane Society of Missouri; Karen Strange of Missouri Federation of Animal Owners; Bob Baker, of MAAL (a large animal welfare lobby organization -- which, incidentally, still has info on their website to call Gov. Nixon to veto SB 113); Barbara York of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association and John Hagler* of the Missouri Department of Ag.

*BTW, I've been hearing a lot of great things about Hagler from people in Jeff City. Hagler was appointed by Jay Nixon as the head of the department of ag in 2009 -- and immediately set up Operation Bark Alert -- which has shut down nearly 500 poorly run or unlicensed commercial breeders in the past 2 years. Folks say he is serious about getting our inadequate breeders out of business and think he will be successful at doing so -- but not at the expense of those who are running respectible operations.

While these groups were all meeting to come up with a compromise solution (that I think looks pretty solid and is an improvement to the current SB 113/HB131), HSUS was organizing a rally to save Prop B (the ASPCA is pushing the rally also)- - the email I got from them yesterday is posted on the left. It seems obvious at this point that HSUS is more focused on "winning" with Prop B than coming up with a workable solution.

I applaud the large organizations in the state for coming together for a compromise solution and breaking away from HSUS on this. I've been saying from the start that getting both sides in a room to talk is the most important thing to coming up with a workable solution and that compromise was going to have to be a part of this process. I am hopeful that we'll be able to move on and continue with the success we've had over the past 2 years in closing down substandard breeding operations.

I honestly am not sure what next steps are for this proposal -- whether it has to be kicked back to the House and Senate, or added on later. I'm trying to figure that part out.

H/T to Fired Up Missouri for posting both the signed agreement and the proposed legislation text.

April 14, 2011

Yesterday, the Missouri House of Representatives passed HB 131 85-71. There were several attempts to add amendments to HB 131, however, all failed, which isn't terribly surprising, as HB 131 mirrored SB 113 -- so any changes would have had to go back to the Senate for revisions.

Now the bill goes to Gov. Jay Nixon's office for signature -- and he is expected to sign it. These bills make changes to Missouri's Prop B, which passed in November by a vote of 52% to 48%.

There are a few positives from the changes in HB 131/SB 113.

-- The bill raises the limit to the cost of licensing a breeding operation -- which will help provide funding for enforcing the laws (this is a specific recommendation made by both the state auditor and the Better Business Bureau).

-- The bill gives the attorney general power to close down frequent violators of current laws - so it is no longer necessary for local law enforcement to shut down these operations where the good ol' boy's network often caused county leaders to turn the other cheek like "that's just Billy Bob, that's how he's always done things." This is also a specific recommendation from the state auditor and the BBB.

-- Has a set funding mechanism for Operation Bark Alert -- which has led to 364 unlicensed facilities being closed down and more than 4300 dogs rescued in just 2 years.

-- In addition, raised awareness and concern about the problems in Jefferson city has led the Senate Budget committee to add $1.1 million to the Department of Agriculture that would be dedicated to hiring 10 more staff and operating expenses for better enforcement of current regulations on the dog breeding industry. The Senate has said that they intend to tie this increased funding to the Gov. Nixon's signature on the changes to Missouri's Prop B. Increased enforcement was also among the recommendations by the state auditor and the BBB.

The changes, and increased funding, all will have a positive impact on the welfare of breeding dogs in the state. These changes were badly needed, and I'm thrilled to see them going through.

There are many other elements of Prop B that were removed -- some for the better, some for reasons that don't make sense.

- Gone are provisions that limit the number of breeding dogs to no more than 50 -- a clause that I have long contended was very problematic for a host of reasons and the primary reason I didn't support the law.

-- Gone are a couple of provisions that mandated punishment for failed compliance -- which word from people that are very close to this would have been VERY problematic on a number of fronts.

-- Gone also are provisions for "unfettered outside access" -- which wasn't great, and mandatory rest between breeding cycles (which is debated among the veterinary community).

-- Also gone are laws requiring "fresh water" and larger kennel sizes - -which are a shame to have lost - and the water element seems petty that it would have been removed as it is implied in the current law, but more clearly written in Prop B.

Supporters of Prop B are upset with the decisions. Many of these organizations have been spending the past four months declaring it unfair to change the "will of the voters" instead of actually acknowledging some of the problems with Prop B and working on positive changes (some were made, but some other good things were lost).

The response from HSUS (who has been primarily bankrolling the $6 million+ campaign for Prop B) is probably even worse than I would have expected. HSUS has apparently created/joined a coalition that now seeks to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to the Missouri State Constitution that would make it harder for the state legislature to overturn citizen initiatives requiring a 3/4 majority of both houses vs a simple majority there is now. How much exactly can a 501c3 organization spend on lobbying in my state?

Meanwhile, I think this is exactly the wrong approach to solving the problem.

HSUS seeks to create a Constitutional Amendment that will allow them more ability to push through initiatives without the support of the breeding community (and most likely, the rest of the agricultural community as well).

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Mike Fry has a really great blog post about how in Minnesota the largest no kill animal shelter in the state, sat down with the Purebred Dog Breeder's Association and created a law that both sides agree upon. With both sides supporting the law, there is little opposition, and thus, and a likely passing of the law this year.

In my opinion, for too long the rescue community has been way too eager to cast anyone who breeds a dog as being a puppy miller. Meanwhile, the breeding community has been prone to casting all animal welfare advocates as animal rights nazis who want to end all pet ownership.

Meanwhile, most people I've met exist in the middle of those two extremes. And yet the polarization has created a stalemate in Jefferson City and the dogs have been left as the victims of the political stalemate.

And at this point, I don't think HSUS can lead the talks. The breeding community doesn't see HSUS as trustworthy and willing to compromise, and HSUS continues to reinforce this opinion by trying to bully their way through the state legislative system by spending millions of dollars their donars think is going for the care of animals. I think it's time for the animal welfare community to step up and meet the breeding community in the middle (and for those responsible breeders out there to reach out and do the same) -- and create something that is truly viable -- that all parties can agree on. It is not ok to say "we have a great law, we should do nothing". It is also not ok to treat every breeder as if they are a money-grubbing, animal hater.

It's time we move the ridiculous outliers on both sides of this equation to the fringes and let those in the middle talk about honest changes to the laws that need to be made. I have no doubt that the current changes with SB 113 and HB 131 will help -- especially with the increased enforcement resources and better ability to shut down problem breeders. But there is little doubt we can do better -- but it will take collaboration to do so.

March 10, 2011

Earlier today, the Missouri State Senate passed SB 113 by a vote of 20-14. SB 113 is designed to replace Missouri's Prop B -- which was passed by a citizen's ballot initiative back in November. Making changes to the bill is certainly within the state legislature's rights in the state of Missouri and is not at all uncommon in citizen ballot initiatives.

The bill now moves the House of Representatives - where it is expected to be approved and go to Governor Jay Nixon who is probably the last hope of supporters of Prop B to keep it in its current form

There have certainly been a lot of opinions out there about Prop B/SB 113 (I'll get to some of those in a bit), but I want to clear up exactly what SB 113 does (with a few comments).

1) SB 113 changes the name of the law -- from the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Act" to the "Canine Cruelty Prevention Act". This is clearly no big deal, and I think a good thing. I'm actually stunned that the state Attorney General allowed the original law name to stay.

2) It applies the law to all commercial breeders, animal shelters, rescues and dog pounds in the state. In all honesty, there are a lot of civic animal shelters that do need to be cleaned up also.

3) It raises the maximum fee for obtaining a license from $500 to $2500. It also requires each licensee to pay $25 each year that is dedicated to the Department of Agriculture to help fund Operation Bark Alert.

First of all, the money for Operation Bark Alert is fantastic. The 2 year old program has been responsible for shutting down more than 360 breeding operations shut down in the past 2 years and more than 4300 dogs rescued from substandard breeding facilities. This program has been a huge success and to see more funding for the program is a great win.

As for the other fees, I don't know how they will be assigned. There is no note on how much fees will actually increase, but raising the minimum was very important. The lack of enforcement of the state's current laws has been well-documented, and the decision increase fees is consistent with recommendations from the State Auditor's Report and the Better Business Bureau. Increasing funding, to increase enforcement (on not only adequately doing inspections, but also in enforcement actions against violators of the law) is essential to successfully dealing with the 'puppy mill' problem here in Missouri. I'm obviously concerned about how high the fees will get hiked up on shelters and rescues, but overall, the need for revenue here is really important to solving the problem and I obviously support higher fees for the breeding operations (which haven't been raised since 1993).

4) SB 113 removes the 50 breeding dog limit. I know a lot of people are really upset by this, but I think this one is a legal issue for the state and will cause a lot of problems with the opening of more breeding operations, dogs going to auction and dogs getting killed at our shelters. There has been little doubt in my mind that this provision was going away.

5) SB 113 removes the criminal codes which were somewhat poorly written. The law does replace these provisions with higher fees and penalties for repeat offenders of the act. This is something that badly needed to be done and is also consistent with the recommendations from the State Auditor and the Better Business Bureau. I will be talking to some folks in the coming days to see if I can get a feel for how well-written these provisions are.

6) The new law also makes it a Class A misdemeanor to stack cages without an impervious layer between the cages.

7) Necessary Veterinary Care has been redefined so that instead of each animal needing an annual inspection, the facility must have a visual inspection of the shelter twice a year and any dog that shows signs of disease or injury must get a full inspection by a licenced veterinarian.

8) Regular exercise has been redefined from "constant and unfettered access to the outdoors" to "the type and amount of exercise sufficient to comply with an exercise plan that is approved by a licensed veterinarian....and where such pan affords the dog maximum opportunity for outdoor exercise as weather permits." I certainly like that they tried to keep the spirit of the law, and was never a fan of the "unfettered access" wording. I have been told by some this is more enforceable than it might sound. Also, keep in mind this rule applies to shelters and rescues also.

9) Sufficient Housing has been redefined. It is no longer necessary for cage to have a solid floor and the temperature restrictions have been eliminated. They have been replaced by to mandate that the dog have a solid surface to lie down on, properly ventilated and protected from the extremes of weather conditions.

10) It also eliminated prop B's cage size requirements. I would be supportive of increasing the kennel sizes for animals kept in cages. But let's keep in mind that this one also applies to rescues -- which could have been problematic. I'm sure there is a way to increase the kennel sizes for long-term type of dogs vs those in short-term care, but this probably had to go away if they were going to make this law apply to all animal care facilities.

While I realize why some supporters or Prop B are upset, these changes are not "eviscerated" or "gutted" or "kicking puppies" or any of the other outrageous things that are being said. Certainly there are some elements that could have been better -- however, the Senate removed some of the obvious problems with the bill AND added some very important funding clauses, based on solid recommendations for state agencies, that will likely do more to solve the real enforcement issues than Prop B would have if left untouched.

And yet, there is outrage in some small circles. It's amazing to me that Wayne Pacelle of HSUS can write a blog that states that the Senate passed a bill to "eviscerate" Prop B -- and that the Senate "gutted" Prop B (including the headline "Democracy Neutered") without mentioning, even once in the two blog posts, that the Senate addressed the key issue of lack of enforcement issues head on with higher fees or that they ensured the funding for Operation Bark -- a service that he credits for its success in the latter of the two links above. (For the record, this is inexplicably the first mention of Operation Bark's success I've seen from HSUS). Providing more funding was badly needed and was foolishly omitted from the writing of Prop B.

Leaving out this information really does make it seem as if Pacelle is hiding some of the truth (cough) and is more concerned about getting HSUS's law passed than he is about solving the problem. In many ways, HSUS should be celebrating this change. Through the ballot initiative they were able to get the legislature to take action on something they have waited too long to do and provided funding options to help solve the problem. Wasn't that the point? Meanwhile, instead of recognizing some of Prop B's flaws and making some compromises, HSUS took themselves out of the equation by insisting that their law stand. As is. No exceptions. I think if they had come to the table willing to compromise they might have been able to keep some of the other provisions.

In November, Missouri voters for Prop B -- because they wanted the puppy mill problem in the state to end. If the law had been better written, it would have passed by 75% (not 51.6%). People want the problems solved. My hope is that SB 113 will be an even better solution than Prop B....it at least tackles the core problem.

For more information:

MissouriNet -- at the bottom of the link is the audio to the 45 minute Senate Debate from today

February 16, 2011

Yesterday, the Agriculture Policy Committee of the Missouri House of Representatives unanimously backed a bill, HB 131, that would remove most of the requirements of Missouri's Proposition B. HB 131 appears to be a straight companion bill to SB 113, which got the endorsement of the Senate Agriculture Policy Committee a couple of weeks ago.

I won't talk a lot about HB 131 or SB 113. The bills themselves strip out most of the policies in the voter-approved Prop B. While some of the stipulations in the bill were quite good, a large number of them were actually really bad. I've been very vocal in my opposition to the 50 dog breeding limit (primarily because there appears to be no satisfactory answer to the question "what happens to the rest of the dogs?" - but also I think limiting the size of someone's business may be legally problematic), but there also appear to be a lot of problems with some of the criminal statutes as well. From the folks I've talked to, there appear to be a couple of different issues with the criminal codes (and again, I'm not a lawyer, but there are people smarter than I am telling me this stuff -- one of whom is a lawyer, so I'm going to relay this the best I can):

1) They require misdemeanor charges for any violations -- no matter how minor. Anyone who has ever worked in the restaurant industry knows that it is virtually impossible to pass an inspection with a 100% clean record, and imagine if that 1 minor violation resulted in a misdemenaor charge. Prop B also has a higher scale for second time offenders -- but with no time limit on the second time. So someone could get busted for a fairly minor infraction in 2012, and then, have 20 years of a clean record, and get busted for another minor infraction in 2032, and the scale would increase on them. This has been apparently pretty problematic in the legislature.

2) The other problem appears to be that the bill creates what are criminal activities, but then excludes shelters and rescue groups from violating the criminal code. For a lot of good reasons, the court systems don't like that, and basically have decided that if an activity is illegal, then it is illegal for anyone to do it, not just one group of people. Apparently this was part of the impetous for SB95.

These types of legal problems are exactly why the state retains the right to adjust laws passed through citizen's initiatives. While it isn't uncommon for errors in legislator-passed laws to be "cleaned up" after their passing, it certainly isn't uncommon for the same thing to happen in citizen's initiatives. This is why I think a lot of the cries about "this is a fight for democracy" are unfounded.

So there is little doubt that changes will be made -- and this is in spite of HSUS' continue approach that there should be "no compromises". But there have to be. Because the law is not workable in its current form.

So instead of taking the approach of actually coming up with compromise solutions, they continue to send emails to Missouri residents claiming we should insist that the law stay in place in spite of its problems.

It shouldn't be a big surprise that HSUS and Wayne Pacelle would be on the unreasonable side of this. This is, after all, the same Wayne Pacelle that insisted that the dogs confiscated from Mike Vick's kennels were the "most dangerous they had ever seen" -- in spite of the reports from evaluators that most were "pancake dogs" that would cower at the sight of new humans. This is the same Wayne Pacelle that thought these dogs should all be killed without an evaluation -- even though the majority are doing well now living as members of society. This is the same Wayne Pacelle that welcomed Mike Vick back with open arms, has said he is rehabiliated, and that he would be a good dog owner again some day -- in spite of Vick's handlers saying they don't care about the dogs and that he is frequently heard complaining about having to lecture people on the horrors of dog fighting.

So it shouldn't be a surprise if Pacelle, and HSUS, are found to be unreasonable.

But the problem is, that the people in the animal welfare community, the people who really care about animals, seem to be ok with letting HSUS be the voice for them when it comes to things like Puppy mill cruelty. And that needs to change.

Instead of making a positive impact for the animals, HSUS had created further divide between the legislators and those who are really trying to help the animals. Now, it seems that many of the state legislators - at the very sound of mentioning a need to fix the cruelty problems in commercial breeding facilities in the state - put up a wall and cast said person in the same category as HSUS. We're instantly typecast as being unreasonable and uncompromising.

We need to take back the voice of caring about animals away from HSUS, and bring it back to the people who are more concerned about that animals than they are about making policies (regardless of how poorly those policies are written).

We need to stand up for very respected men like Dr. Bud Herzog. Dr. Herzog is an EXTREMELY well-respected veterinarian in a suburban community here in Kansas City -- and has been for decades. I've had the pleasure of talking to Dr. Herzog when several area communities were talking about breed bans in the KC metro several years ago. He is a good man. Two days ago he wrote a letter to the Kansas City Star stating that there are problems with Prop B and that the wording of the law is misguided. Meanwhile the ususal, uncompromising internet trolls and HSUS activists again showed up in the comments section -- even accusing Dr. Herzog of just protecting his financial interests (which, to the best I can tell, he has no financial interest at stake here given the community in which he serves).

But it is the unreasonable among us that have become the most dominant voices. It is HSUS, who has the money to make themselves the dominant voice -- but only if we let them.

Fortunately, wiser heads are starting to prevail at the state legislature. Instead of just moving on with the two bills that strip down Prop B -- they are looking at making improvements.

The House Committee has also approved an amendment that will increase the annual fees for licensed dog breeders by $25 a year -- which would raise about $34,000 that the state then plans to use to investigate and shut down unlicensed breeding operations. Based on all of the reports (from the USDA, Better Business Bureau and the State Auditor's department), this single act alone would do more to solve the primary issues with illegal and unethical dog breeding in the state than Prop B. It's a good first step.

The problems with animal cruelty in commercial breeding kennels are a real problem in this state - -and they do need to be addressed. But I think taking a reasonable approach to solving the real problems will go much futher than the unreasonable, uncompromising approach that is being pushed by HSUS and Wayne Pacelle. The animal welfare community needs to take their voice back on this isssue...or risk having their voices completely ignored.

January 25, 2011

Earlier today, the Missouri State House of Representatives held a public hearing on Proposition B. Tomorrow, the Senate will have their hearing.

Based on the bills that have been proposed, there are a lot of different options for the state legislatures:

1) Do nothing, and leave Prop B as voted on by the voters in November. From what we're hearing out of Jefferson City, there doesn't appear to be a huge appetite for this.

2) Repeal Prop B. There is a bill on the table in each house to do just that. The legislature usually doesn't completely overturn the voters, but it wouldn't be unprecedented either.

3) Keep Prop B, in its entirety, but change the wording so that all the stipulations apply to breeders, as well as shelters and rescues. This is what SB 95 is worded to do.

4) Create some type of compromise solution -- and craft it to either apply only to commercial breeders or to all dog care facilities.

For a lot of reason I don't think either of the first two options will happen. I think there are too many problems with Prop B for it to remain in its entirety and unchanged -- and based on feedback after today's House hearings, many legislators seem to agree. I also don't think a full out repeal will be a good faith decision by the legislature in a state that does have some pretty major issues with puppy mills. I also don't think the legislature would want to cripple the animal welfare community by passing SB 95 as written, so that leaves us with a potential compromise situation.

While a few very vocal people (including HSUS) are not willing to compromise, it seems as if that would be the most viable option. I also would also contend that a well-crafted compromise would actually be of more benefit to animals than Prop B in its entirety.

So with that, I offer my recommendations to changes to Prop B that would make it a) better for animals and b) be more palatable for the breeding community (I actually think many of them would be on-board with this). I think I've eliminated most of the key sticking points with Prop B, and added a few things that would fix some major problems.

Things to eliminate from Prop B:

1) The 50 breeding dog limit. I think this is the one that represents significant government over-reach by limiting the size of the business. It also doesn't necessarily pertain to how animals are cared for as it is only an arbitrary number. I also think this one represents the biggest problem for the rescue community as there is no safety net in the law that covers what happens to all of the dogs that are in large breeding operations when they are forced to downsize. I think is probably the single biggest sticking point, and has the least to do with actual animal care.

Provide some compromise solutions for:

1) The requirement that cages have solid floors. I KNOW why this was included, but I don't think it's the best solution. Put in a stipulation for small wire kennels that are encased in rubber, or something. Living on the hard wire is not good for the dogs, however, if anyone in the rescue community has ever fostered a litter of puppies, they know one thing: puppies pee. A lot. The solid floor requirement would end up leaving animals to lay in their own pee unnecessarily.

2) Raise the max temperature of 85 degrees -- I'm not sure what the right number here is, but from the people I've talked to, they say 85 is too low for young puppies, who need a warmer temperature for their small bodies. The average body temperature for dogs is between 100.5 and 102.5 -- so warmer than it is for humans. So 85 is likely a bit cold for a well-cared for dog.

3) Eliminate the requirement for unfettered access to the outdoors. It gets cold in Missouri. The overnight low tonight is suppose to be 15 degrees and many areas of the state have about a foot of snow on the ground. The idea of allowing a young puppy unfettered access to such cold isn't humane. Again, I get what the advocates for the law were trying to do, but there has to be a better way than this.

4) There may also be issues with the "adequate rest between breeding cycles" issue (I've heard some complaints that it is actually better for dogs to have consecutive litters). I don't know about this but I'm pretty sure someone in the vet community would know for sure.

Things to completely add to the law

1) A moderate increase in licensing fees. Fees have not been raised since 1993, so a moderate increase is not unreasonable. Make sure that all fees go directly toward enforcement. I would think many of the breeding operations that are making a concerted effort would be in favor of more enforcement in shutting down unlicensed and poorly run operations to a) get out from under the cloud they're creating and b) eliminate some competition.

2) Create harsher punishments for operating without a license. Right now the current policy is to try to bring these operations into compliance. HSUS estimates that there are 3,000 commercial breeders in the state, and only about 1500 are licensed. Creating harsh penalties for operating without a license, including eliminating their right to operate for at least 5 years would get rid of the people who aren't even trying to do the basics of getting a license. Fines should be designated back into enforcement. (I would like a clause here that allows for some forgiveness for people who simply let a license temporarily lapse or have 4 or 5 dogs and don't realize they need a license to breed).

3) Harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Prop B does some of this, but it's a bit over-broad in how its worded and could be cleaned up some.

I think something like these compromise solutions would deal with the single biggest issue in the state (which is lack of enforcement), and ensure that funding for enforcement will remain while the state deals with its budget issues. I also think it gets rid of some of the biggest hot spots with Prop B while keeping most of the basic care-for-dogs elements in the law. I also then think the law could be applied to all groups (rescues and breeders) without causing undue problems for the rescues (rescues, let me know if there is a hang-up there).

My fear is that with both sides fighting for either a "keep it in its entirety" or "get rid of it altogether" from the fringe groups on each side, that opportunities to work through real solutions that could benefit both sides may be lost. And that'd be a shame.